Aug 31 2008
‘Philosophy of Martial Arts’ conclusion.
I have come to a conclusion. Fundamentally my martial arts philosophy is based on the self defense principle, while it is framed in my ideals as a buddhist regarding strength.
I believe everyone has a right to defend their right to life if someone encroaches on that, and this is something I believe is taken as fact in today’s age. If someone attacks you for whatever reason you should be able to take the reasonable steps to protect your right to life. Of course what these reasonable steps are is a question all in itself, that which I believe many martial artists strive to eventually answer.
Take the idea of self defense idea and place it within the framework of what I view as the root of strength, that being compassion, and I believe you have a healthy discipline.
In such a manner the belief is fostered that strength is of value in light of its defensive attributes. But because strength stems indirectly from compassion you must learn and apply your martial arts style in accordance.
What does this foster? To me it fosters compassion for others in the hope of further self development. An act of violence would be incompatible with this belief, just as I believe, or rather hope, that I am incapable of a truly violent action.
On the topic of sparring, I don’t think, is an act of violence because it lacks the intent to hurt, kill, or maim. Rather it is the application of compassion through a method of wisdom with the intent to strengthen.
This is I think what I think, heh. I have never really sat down and tried to piece together my beliefs about martial arts before.
What do you think?
2 Responses to “‘Philosophy of Martial Arts’ conclusion.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
I don’t like the compassion or spiritual aspects of martial arts. It’s out of place. Excess baggage. I train in martial arts so that I can defend myself should the need arise. I’ll meet violence with violence if required. The extent to which I will meet violence with violence will vary. A good rule of thumb is to use as much violence as the opponent intends to use on you. Obviously, you don’t know for certain. And you might be wrong. But if I think my life is in danger then I will hold nothing back. If I must kill to survive then I will.
I won’t justify this through some inherent ‘right to life’. Such an idea is nonsense. Life lives and that is that. Rights and the like are social constructions. But when it comes to my safety, or the safety of my friends or family, then I pay little heed to the whims of society. I will do whatever I can to protect myself and them from danger. Even if I were to use excessive violence. I would kill a stranger to save a friend from serious injury.
The question I would then aim at you Michael is how do you know you will make the right choice of use? How do you know you won’t just become a violent bully?
I find that spiritual elements keep you on the right path, a martial art that is built upon compassion is less likely to strike falsely yet more likely to be struck.
I think there are two distinctions of thought in this area, both which I have experienced in different martial studies.
1) The Preemptive Martial Art
&
2) The Reactive Martial Art
I would argue that the preemptive martial art is much more effective, but as well would say it is much more prone to jumping the gun in most situations. As well I think this approach is detached from the spiritual element you disagree with.
To me martial arts without spirituality are fighting styles, fighting styles are made to hurt thereby making me an inflicter of suffering. I don’t want to be an inflicter of suffering.
I would rather take a hit, then jump the gun. Even if it means there is a possibility that I may lose because of it.